Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Afghanistan ring a bell? Did we get anything out of that? THAT was about protecting our security.

Ok I'm sorry about the whole Hitler thing.

At 7/30/03 05:29 PM, BaKsHi wrote:

Comparing our president to Hitler is not a good thing and it doesn't help support your arguement.

But that was Hitler's policy on patriotism! ^_^

At 7/30/03 05:17 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: Afghanistan ring a bell? Did we get anything out of that? THAT was about protecting our security.

No, you trained the Taliban and you even funded their operations in the USSR. They started hating you because fo your actions during the gulf war but you just ignored them. Then they blew up the WTC and THEN you considered them a threat to your freedom fo speech and junk. You didn't protect anything, you got revenge on the monster you created.

At 7/31/03 12:33 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: But that was Hitler's policy on patriotism! ^_^

Hitler also said that people are sheep. Do you disagree?

Just because someone is a...is there a stronger term for crazy fucking asshole?...doesn't mean that everything they've ever said is completely wrong. We have to support our troops because without a military, we'd be conquered by the first nation that came along. You can disagree with the decisions that the president or even individual officers make, but you have to be rooting for our troops. If you don't, that means you hope they fail. And, in the army, failing typically means getting killed. You may be against the deployment of troops, but once they've been deployed, you have to hope they succeed.

At 7/31/03 12:54 AM, dudeitsallama wrote:

Hitler also said that people are sheep. Do you disagree?

no, but that's an opinion, not an order.

Just because someone is a...is there a stronger term for crazy fucking asshole?...doesn't mean that everything they've ever said is completely wrong.

True.

We have to support our troops because without a military, we'd be conquered by the first nation that came along.

...Who has a very colorful history of invading South America? Who has a very colorful history of conquering the First Nations? Who has a very recent coloful history of invading Iraq despite being an illegal move? Who is the world's superpower?

You can disagree with the decisions that the president or even individual officers make, but you have to be rooting for our troops. If you don't, that means you hope they fail.

If the troops decided to kill the rest of the Indians, would you support them?

And, in the army, failing typically means getting killed.

gasp

You may be against the deployment of troops, but once they've been deployed, you have to hope they succeed.

If they're defending innocents, of course. If they're murdering innocents and installing dictators in nearly a dozen countries, fuck them.

I DONT SUPPORT THEM AT ALL BECAUSE THIS WAR IS BULLSHIT IN THE FIRST PLACE IT WAS NONE OF OUR FUCKIN BUSINESS

At 7/31/03 03:55 AM, LaGwAgOnNoFxPuNk wrote: I DONT SUPPORT THEM AT ALL BECAUSE THIS WAR IS BULLSHIT IN THE FIRST PLACE IT WAS NONE OF OUR FUCKIN BUSINESS

thank you for you intelligent, well thought out opinion.

At 7/31/03 01:01 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: ...Who has a very colorful history of invading South America? Who has a very colorful history of conquering the First Nations? Who has a very recent coloful history of invading Iraq despite being an illegal move? Who is the world's superpower?

The country with a stronger armies than the countries you listed. That's my point. If we had no army or a really weak one, we wouldn't be a superpower.

If the troops decided to kill the rest of the Indians, would you support them?

The troops don't decide to do anything. Politicians do. If they act on their own, they're just people with guns.

If they're defending innocents, of course. If they're murdering innocents and installing dictators in nearly a dozen countries, fuck them.

Soldiers can't pick and choose which orders to follow. If they could, the army wouldn't be very efficient, now would it?

The points Doggydude is making are all against the people in power, not the army. The people in power, like Bush, are (supposedly) elected by the people of America, because the people believe they are the best-suited people to run the country. In doing so, they give them the right to order the army what to do. So the actions of the army, ultimately, are the responsibility of the people (admittedly, its questionable about how Bush got into office, and whether he ever should have).
You can't have an army with a mind of its own. The army is a tool of the people, to defend the people's interests (and when another country is supposedly threatening those interests, to take 'pre-emptive' action. Quite possibly bullshit, but thats the justification behind it). If the army had a mind of its own, it would be in a position to seize government (there ain't no other organisation in the country with any chance of standing up to a few hundred thousand people waving big guns around). Even if it was an idealistic army, and didn't seize government, if it refused to obey the orders of the government, it would completely undermine the government's authority, and you'd end up with first the army, and then the rest of the nation taking law into their own hands. Otherwise known as anarchy. This probably coulda been put better, but I lost the thread about halfway through typing this. Too bad.

then he has these prejusice little thoughts after that becuase to him ever Arab now has to checked in the air port and be pulled over and when no ones looking that innocent white guy no one suspects blows him self up.

Actually, Arab men CAN'T be stopped at airports. It is "Racial Profiling" and politiclly incorrect.

It seems that most of the people on Newgrounds would rather die than defend themselves. ie. Bush is evil, war is terror, war is evil, we need the UN, The terrorists are our fault, etc.

Which is ok, because we in America tolerate that. Unlike the Baathists or the Taliban, or Bin-Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, North Korea, Red China, Columbian Drug-Runners,etc. who would torture and/or kill you for insulting them.

At 8/2/03 10:45 AM, Darkside007 wrote:
Actually, Arab men CAN'T be stopped at airports. It is "Racial Profiling" and politiclly incorrect.

Just because it's not exactly legal hasn't stopped it from happening. It occurs all the time down at Indianapolis Airport, and I'd imagine moreso at a busy place like O'Hare or LAX. Things happen even if they're not right, and no one complains because, in the eyes of most, if you stop an Arab at the screening station, you're preventing possible terrorism. The only one angry? The Arab.

At 8/2/03 10:59 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Just because it's not exactly legal hasn't stopped it from happening. It occurs all the time down at Indianapolis Airport, and I'd imagine moreso at a busy place like O'Hare or LAX. Things happen even if they're not right, and no one complains because, in the eyes of most, if you stop an Arab at the screening station, you're preventing possible terrorism. The only one angry? The Arab.

Actually, what we're seeing now is an avoidance of stopping Arabs at screenings. Screeners don't want to be seen as "profiling". This profiling has had a negative connotation attached to it, but It's really not such a bad thing. When ethnicity is a common trait among terrorists, then ethnicity must, logically, must be a consideration when looking for potential terrorists. How many terrorists are white, 65 years old and in a wheelchair? None, but that's exactly who I saw being picked out for a random search at an airport security screening. I've seen them search kids, blind people w/ seeing-eye dogs, the elderly (even with wheelchairs and crutches), etc. How likely is it that these sort of people are terrorists rather than young Arab men that are being waved through out of political correctness?

Yes but after David Koresh and Timothy McVeigh or even Hitler, were white people racially profiled?

No, because they're the ones profiling other races.

damn i hate retards, firstly, bush was elected fair and square, all this shit about the election being stolen from gore due to the "technicality" of there being an electoral college is just plain dumb. there was no theft, if they had given gore the victory based on the popular vote then, the constitution would have been spat upon and elections would be based on who could get the best lawyers to argue their way into office.

bush is human just like everyone else; he has beleifs and personal flaws and sometimes he'll make mistakes. however concidering the situation he was tossed into, he's doing a fairly good job; this isn't a pitched battle between two waring nations, it's guerilla warefare on a global scale. terrorism requires tough leadership and bush is showing that he isn't going to pussyfoot around like clinton and just beg the naughty people to stop, he's going to kick their asses.

the soldiers of the us military (i'm in the Army) follow orders weather they like them or not. i didn't feel like having my reserve unit activated to pull guard duty, but the security of our nation depended on myself and my fellow soldiers leaving our comfortable civilian jobs and families to move to cramped barracks and boring jobs. the only up side is, we aren't in the desert fighting iraqis. no matter how much you liberal-hippie-treehuggers think you hate war; it's the soldier (sweating his balls off in the hot desert sun for a year while terrorists hide in the civilian crowds and shoot ak-47's at his head) that hates wars!

the war in iraq is not illegal and is more than justified. back in the days of good ol bush senior, we had a little war with iraq and saddam over his invasion of kuwait. the reason why saddam invaded kuwait was to capture the oil so that he could pay off his debt from his war with iran. the same war with iran in which he used chemical weapons to annihilate the soldiers and civilians alike. we came to kuwaits defense and drove the iraqi forces out and all but annihilated their armies. but before taking over the country we gave saddam a chance to give up his evil ways. the UN and iraq agreeded to cease fire, but saddam had to destroy and show proof of the destruction or turn over to the UN all of the banned weapons including his chemical weapons and longrange missles and similar offensive tools of destruction. he agreed to our terms, but eventually kicked out our UN inspectors and good ol clinton just looked the other way for the most part. now terrorism is a huge problem and we have a tyrannical state that has gone 12 years without complying with our UN resolutions and bush was the man to enforce our rules. so you see all saddam had to do was give us the banned weapons or simply give us evidence that he destroyed them and the tyrant would still be in power today. however he didn't and now he's been made an example of and iraq is on it's way to freedom. bush is confident that we will find the evidence we need for the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but it's only been 3 months since we took over iraq and we are still busy fighting back the guerillas in the cities, which leaves little room for a proper search and interogation of the country and it's leadership. give it time and everyone will get plenty of proof, but i don't see why you would need it, since the proof is the lack of complience. the weapons may never be found, but if they were destroted like he was directed to, then why would he not give us evidence of their destruction and avoid war?

i think i covered most every point thats been made and i hope that all you anti-american pre-teens will learn to read a newspaper or history book and watch the news (not CNN "communist new network"). ignorance can be fixed, but you actually want to know the truth!

well, n0g0d, i am a staunch military supporter.. but from what ive seen from bush and rumsfeld's irresponsible use of the military lately, i am surprised that you still support him...

the war in iraq was and is not worth any of the lives that were lost for it, it isnt worth your life, my boyfriends life (he is in the army), or the lives of any of the iraqis who were killed. it was just another big mistake that goes to prove that civilians (ie rummy) should not be allowed to order around the military. *sigh*

A soldier fighting in Iraq....yeah I'm sure you're 100% unbiased.

At 8/3/03 07:50 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: A soldier fighting in Iraq....yeah I'm sure you're 100% unbiased.

And youre not?

At 8/3/03 06:17 PM, n0g0d wrote: damn i hate retards, firstly, bush was elected fair and square, all this shit about the election being stolen from gore due to the "technicality" of there being an electoral college is just plain dumb. there was no theft, if they had given gore the victory based on the popular vote then, the constitution would have been spat upon and elections would be based on who could get the best lawyers to argue their way into office.

bush is human just like everyone else; he has beleifs and personal flaws and sometimes he'll make mistakes. however concidering the situation he was tossed into, he's doing a fairly good job; this isn't a pitched battle between two waring nations, it's guerilla warefare on a global scale. terrorism requires tough leadership and bush is showing that he isn't going to pussyfoot around like clinton and just beg the naughty people to stop, he's going to kick their asses.

the soldiers of the us military (i'm in the Army) follow orders weather they like them or not. i didn't feel like having my reserve unit activated to pull guard duty, but the security of our nation depended on myself and my fellow soldiers leaving our comfortable civilian jobs and families to move to cramped barracks and boring jobs. the only up side is, we aren't in the desert fighting iraqis. no matter how much you liberal-hippie-treehuggers think you hate war; it's the soldier (sweating his balls off in the hot desert sun for a year while terrorists hide in the civilian crowds and shoot ak-47's at his head) that hates wars!

the war in iraq is not illegal and is more than justified. back in the days of good ol bush senior, we had a little war with iraq and saddam over his invasion of kuwait. the reason why saddam invaded kuwait was to capture the oil so that he could pay off his debt from his war with iran. the same war with iran in which he used chemical weapons to annihilate the soldiers and civilians alike. we came to kuwaits defense and drove the iraqi forces out and all but annihilated their armies. but before taking over the country we gave saddam a chance to give up his evil ways. the UN and iraq agreeded to cease fire, but saddam had to destroy and show proof of the destruction or turn over to the UN all of the banned weapons including his chemical weapons and longrange missles and similar offensive tools of destruction. he agreed to our terms, but eventually kicked out our UN inspectors and good ol clinton just looked the other way for the most part. now terrorism is a huge problem and we have a tyrannical state that has gone 12 years without complying with our UN resolutions and bush was the man to enforce our rules. so you see all saddam had to do was give us the banned weapons or simply give us evidence that he destroyed them and the tyrant would still be in power today. however he didn't and now he's been made an example of and iraq is on it's way to freedom. bush is confident that we will find the evidence we need for the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but it's only been 3 months since we took over iraq and we are still busy fighting back the guerillas in the cities, which leaves little room for a proper search and interogation of the country and it's leadership. give it time and everyone will get plenty of proof, but i don't see why you would need it, since the proof is the lack of complience. the weapons may never be found, but if they were destroted like he was directed to, then why would he not give us evidence of their destruction and avoid war?

i think i covered most every point thats been made and i hope that all you anti-american pre-teens will learn to read a newspaper or history book and watch the news (not CNN "communist new network"). ignorance can be fixed, but you actually want to know the truth!

_______________
The electoral college is undemocratic and counter to the will of the populace. I however would oppose the electoral college no matter who had won. Not to mention carping over illegitimacy is sort of aside the point at the moment.
Kicking terrorist ass is great, if only we could limit it to terrorist ass. Some eight thousand or so Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war so far. Considering the size of the familys in that country, it probobly wouldn't be extreme to say that there are one hundred and fifty thousand pissed off relatives.
Do you really think that this will help the war on terror?

The best way to fight a guerilla war is through intelligence. You can dump massive amounts of ordinance onto the ground and not get anyone, invade a country and fill it with soldiers and the guerillas will blend right in with the people. Yet there are massive amounts of evidence to show that the White House has manipulated and badgered the intelligence agencies into punching out the numbers Bush & Co. want. That could seem to undermine the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies, wouldn't it?

As I recall he did send reams of paper documenting the absence of weapons in this country. One of our excuses for invading was that we could not wait for the UN to find the weapons, we would have to do it ourselves. Thats why I don't buy the "only three months" thing. I'm actually inclined to believe a recent NYTimes article that suggested Saddam actually had the weapons destroyed but had all the information and scientists for the programs put on hold so that he could resume the projects at a later date.
HOWEVER- Even if we do turn up WMD's I still will not find this war justified. It has far to upset the international community and the arab world and sets a dangerous precident.
Just wondering additionally, but how does one give "proof of destruction" anyway?

I hope I covered every point that you made, and I also hope you correct your "exasperating ego" problem. I know sixteen year old conservatives who write a better argument than you.
I promise not to watch CNN if you promise not to watch Fox.

To say the least, I support our troops 100% as everyone should, they are just doing their job and a damned dangerous one at that; I have family in the military etc. etc. and so on and so forth.

First post. Figured I'd come out swinging.

Hmmmm, I can't say that I support Bush, at least all of his views, but he is my commander in chief so, I still do what I need to do. I do disagree with the way the military is being run now, I think we honestly had it better when, dare I say this, clinton was in office, at least we got a halfway decent pay raise. As far as soldiers being pawns? Hardly, every action on the ground (meaning overseas or even in the field ops) are overseen by each soldier, to know what to do and how to do it is not a group dynamic activity for the most part. That's why we have an ROE to follow, not one specific leader... It helps to keep the KISS mentality in check. (Keep It Simple Stupid for those that do not know.) I could blab on and on about this topic but I really feel no need... If ya'll want to bust my balls on anything I said here or tell me I'm wrong, send me an e-mail... I have nothing else relative to say without getting pissed off at some ass I don't even know. That is all. Eh, and why would we ever invade canada? Total crap on that statement even being made.

Well Huryea, I don't know about the electoral college thing. Who cares. But you say 8000 Iraqi civilians have
been killed in the war. How did you get this figure? Please cite where the hell this number came from. Also, the most convincing evidence is solid evidence. So where are the "massive" amounts of evidence about the White House
tampering with war claims. The only proven false evidence was about the Nigera/uranium claim, and one piece isn't exactly "massive amounts".
And another thing: Guerilla warefare is proving very ineffective in Iraq. We have taken control of an entire country, with who knows how many millions of people, and have only suffered 150-so casualties. The guerilla war would have no effect on military operations, and would only affect what some pacifist hippies think of the war.

At 8/3/03 11:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: Well Huryea, I don't know about the electoral college thing. Who cares. But you say 8000 Iraqi civilians have
been killed in the war. How did you get this figure? Please cite where the hell this number came from. Also, the most convincing evidence is solid evidence. So where are the "massive" amounts of evidence about the White House
tampering with war claims. The only proven false evidence was about the Nigera/uranium claim, and one piece isn't exactly "massive amounts".
And another thing: Guerilla warefare is proving very ineffective in Iraq. We have taken control of an entire country, with who knows how many millions of people, and have only suffered 150-so casualties. The guerilla war would have no effect on military operations, and would only affect what some pacifist hippies think of the war.

www.iraqbodycount.net - I appear to have overstated the numbers as they are between 6-7 thousand. While the site is obviously liberal, I have seen the numbers quoted in Newsweek and numerous other places.
I did not say they were tampering with war claims, I said that there is evidence of them leaning on the intelligence agencies. Pick up the subtltie.
Additionaly, define ineffective- one of the men from my uncles reserve platoon/squadron whatever was killed along with four others in a hummer by an RPG attack two weeks ago. Guerilla warfare isn't supposed to involve massive battles with many killed, its supposed to work just like it is now, a slow chipping away.
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of this sort of conflict on America At Large's opinion on the war, polls show a definate decrease in support of the war and a slippage of support for the president in the past two months.

You've got to question these type of statistics. The body count site purports that it is tracking civilian deaths. However, they also list Saddam's 14-yr. old grandson, who was, reportedly, a combatant during the standoff in Tikrit. I'm just saying that their definition of "civilian" may be a little broad.

Also, the site provides nothing but raw numbers. Nothing is said about who caused incidents resulting in civilian deaths and whether the situation was justified or not. They also focus solely on Coalition forces and seem to ignore any possible Iraqi-caused casualties. They present themselves to be "impartial" but their background image of falling bombs calls that into question as well.

Guerilla warfare is a last ditch effort. They aren't slowly eroding away our forces because there will always be more soldiers. And what you don't always hear about on the news are the times where the US completely destroys pockets of resistance. One of my favorite headlines was "War Gets Bloody: 9 American soldiers killed, 120 Iraqi soldiers dead." I would also like to know exactly how the numbers of dead civilians were found. I'm not expecting you to answer. However, our ground forces haven't been going around looking to kill civilians, and I could only guess these figures are from Iraqi government statements. Anyway, if you knew some of your enemy's citizens were against the war, wouldn't you play against our feelings of compassion and exaggerate the innocent deathtoll? I can only guess that this is how the number is reached because we probably didn't culmitavely (sp?)find 7000 dead Iraqis, and we didn't go around asking.

No, I think those numbers are probobly close to accurate.
If they were from the Iraqi office of misinformation don't you think they would be considerably higher than 7,000?
This sort of brings us to another disturbing point- the US military no longer numbers "collateral damage." Ergo there will never be any figures which will meet your high partisan standards.

At 7/28/03 12:41 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: One of my favorite Propagandhi songs: Stick The Fucking Flag Up Your Goddamn Ass You Sonovabitch.

*watches you earn mad brownie points in his book* Prop owns, and I adore that song.

At 7/28/03 04:04 PM, Dracorna wrote: And just FYI, yes I do have Military Experience.

Early discharge? The experience I have with the military is only from having a military stepdad, living on a military base for a good portion of my life, and having a sensei who is an ex Navy SEAL, and being trained on numerous forms of military activities. And I can honestly say, that whilst I support the troops in defending our country, I don't see our current actions as defending anything that remotely belongs to us. If I was in the military, and I had the choice of going AWOL or murdering people I didn't know, I would be gone. Call me a traitor if you like.

7000 is a lot of people. The truth is we don't know. Besides, I think that if that were true, the Iraqi people would know, and there would be a hell of a lot more than 1 american dead every couple days. Also, look at the post a few back, talking about the iraqi son who fired at US troops to be a civilian. As it is, we will probably never know exactly how many innocents died. But the important thing is that the US went out of its way to take all possible precautions to limit civilian casualties. And it is only partially our fault if some family lives next to a AA battery.
Oh and I just thought of this: What was the civilian deathcount in the first Gulf War?

At 7/28/03 04:53 PM, adrshepard wrote: For one thing, Doggy Dude, it doesn't help your case at all that you're 13 and you can't spell worth monkey crap.

I don't think his age has anything to do with anything. If anything, you should compliment him for taking the time to take a stance on political issues, and actually dare to go against the status quo at such an early age.